Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

SandRider wrote:I think I could put all that together for a few six-packs of Mountain Dew and a couple of hookers ...
and if the coders were a hot lesbian couple, we wouldn't need the hookers ... well, ok, we might
need the hookers .... I'll just go ahead a get the hookers ...

This quote totally needs to be in a movie.


Oh and great, 3/5 miniseries production staff? Please for the love of the GEOD don't hire the same costume people.

DuneFishUK wrote:Sarah Aubrey .... producer
John Harrison .... executive producer
Michael D. Messina .... executive producer
Kevin Misher .... producer
Richard P. Rubinstein .... producer

3/5 (not including honorary "co-producers")

Cheers! I thought it was something like that.

Ampoliros wrote:

SandRider wrote:I think I could put all that together for a few six-packs of Mountain Dew and a couple of hookers ...
and if the coders were a hot lesbian couple, we wouldn't need the hookers ... well, ok, we might
need the hookers .... I'll just go ahead a get the hookers ...

This quote totally needs to be in a movie.


Oh and great, 3/5 miniseries production staff? Please for the love of the GEOD don't hire the same costume people.

I liked the hats

Rob

I know we've been over this more than once, but I really am surprised by the venom that the SciFi series receives here for its costume direction. I really thought most of the choices were quite good ... not too mention far more evocative of the novel than the costumes in the Lynch disaster.

Some of the choices were maybe a bit ... um ... let's say "European." I liked most of the hats, but maybe Irulan's eight-foot-high thing with butterflies was a bit much. I liked most of the characters' "standard" costumes, but maybe having Feyd support his neck with a big triangle was a bit goofy. But at least I didn't laugh out loud like I did with the Lynch-based costumes:

"Red alert! We're being attacked by ... wait, are those supposed to be Sardaukar?"

"Erm ... yes, sir. I think so. Maybe."

"But they look like AIM rejects from Marvel Comics!"



Anyway, it's all subjective, of course. One man's AIM reject is another man's bad-ass Sardaukar. Such is art.

(The costumes were never my problem with the miniseries; it was the goddamn Czech accents. Some of them just bounce right off my ears. I swear, if I hadn't read the books, I would have never had a clue as to what the first Duncan actor was saying).

I hated the costumes:


Oh wait, that's the Pie Man from Strawberry Shortcake. I thought it was a Sardaukar from the mini-series.

TheDukester wrote:I
(The costumes were never my problem with the miniseries; it was the goddamn Czech accents. Some of them just bounce right off my ears. I swear, if I hadn't read the books, I would have never had a clue as to what the first Duncan actor was saying).

You can't understand the Scottish accent?

I agree with you about most of the Dune miniseries actors sounding as if they were from Transylvania. But not Duncan.

Fenring was the worst for me, now that I think about it. But they were all pretty bad.

Saw this on Twitter a little while ago:

IndieMovies: #ChasePalmer, the pen behind #Dune has been hired to adapt #SpiritHouse, the first book in the #VincentCalvino crime novel series
about 12 hours ago via web

So does that mean he has finished reworking the Dune script, or that progress is so slow that he's starting to look for opportunites to fook off. (Remember this is how Berg's exit started, with talk of him taking on other projects... )

How long does it take to write a script? Haven't they started, shouldn't it be done?

Well, supposedly at the beginning he was just reworking for Morel the script Zetumer had written for Berg...

Or was there something about them scrapping it and starting over from scratch? (Or did I dream/imagine that? )

Has there been some announcement that the rewrite was finished, that I'm just forgetting about, or not?

I was getting annoyed with lacks of news. Morel gives us four interviews in such a short span, then nothing until now. Not exactly what I was hoping for.

SandChigger wrote:Well, supposedly at the beginning he was just reworking for Morel the script Zetumer had written for Berg...

Or was there something about them scrapping it and starting over from scratch? (Or did I dream/imagine that? )

I'm pretty sure the new director said they were starting from scratch and I or someone else posted it here.

Has there been some announcement that the rewrite was finished, that I'm just forgetting about, or not?

No, I was just guessing that since the weeks past since that statement was made that it should be done.

I'm sure I heard that they were scrapping everything Berg and whoever did and starting over.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:I'm sure I heard that they were scrapping everything Berg and whoever did and starting over.

Yeah, I saw that on a few sites, not a lot of info out there, but that seems to be a constant.

How does this work? Does Paramount own the rights to the movie? If so, does that mean HPL has nothing to do with it?

Pierre Morel; We're starting from scratch. Peter had an approach which was not mine at all, and we're starting over again. I don't think we're going to keep any elements of the Peter Berg script. It was good, actually. It was interesting. It was just not our vision. I can't tell you right now [who's writing it with me], it's going to be official next week. The deals are not done!

http://www.reelzchannel.com/movie/274408/dune/news" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"[My movie] is all about the first book. I'm trying to be very respectful to the original novel," he explained. "But it's a challenge; there's a lot of expectation, all the readers will be waiting for me with their shotguns. All the non-readers will also be waiting for us, because it's such a complex, rich novel and you have to make it accessible to those who have not read the book. So, it's a tough challenge but I'm very excited about that."

http://www.firstshowing.net/2010/01/12/ ... irst-book/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He seems to be saying the right things, then there's this;

I'd love it to be 3D, of course. It's the kind of movie that has the scope to be 3D. Will they do it in 3D? I'd push for that, but I don't know. As a viewer, I've just been watching Avatar with my kids twice in the theater already and had a blast. It's an amazing experience.

http://www.reelzchannel.com/movie/274408/dune/news" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Does anyone else see this as a red flag?

Not really, given the recent popularity of 3D I would be surprised if any major SF film is made in the next 5 years without being stereoscopic. Honestly, when it's done more subtly (Avatar = good, Alice = bad) it's a nice effect, and you can always watch it the normal way too (which I prefer).

They can make a 3D film into regular, but not vice versa, so why not?

It's not exactly a red flag for me. Since Morel is using Avatar as an example for what he'd want to do, we can be sure he's likely not talking about the performance capture technique they used for Beowulf and Polar Express. That would be a red flag.

Since sandworms would obviously be an integral part of the film, not to mention the background stuff that would still necessarily need to be done with effects it seems a given that 3D would be used in some sense. The only thing that would bother me is if he was planning on the 3D being the focus of the movie rather than more important things like, you know, story and characters.

(Though, I wish they'd use practical effects again. Practical effects still look more real then special effects in most cases, and the worms are a great opportunity to make a model)

Redstar wrote:I'd read in various articles he'd made mention of wanting to do it in 3D, though I haven't seen the specific quote where he said so.

It's not exactly a "red flag", at least for me. Since he's using Avatar as an example, we can be sure he's likely not talking about the performance capture technique they used for Beowulf and Polar Express, which would really be retarded. Since sandworms would obviously be an integral part of the film, not to mention space and planets and spaceships, among other things, 3D would have to be used. Hopefully he doesn't mean they'd be the focus of the movie, but I can understand 3D being used.

Though, I wish they'd use practical effects again. Practical effects still look more real then special effects in most cases, and a model worm would be a great opportunity.

You know 3D can be done with film too right? Just two cameras aimed seperated at the subjects? Not sure, you mentioning motion capture and such doesn't make much sense, it would obviously be a live action film, not CGI (I hope...).

Yeah, I know that. It's just Morel wasn't explicitly differentiating the two techniques (live-action with 3D aspects and entirely 3D), so I was clarifying in case that was D Pope's particular red flag.

Ah, your post was confusing for me.

Me too...

There has never been any question of this being anything other than a live action adaptation. 2d or 3d.

I agree with Redstar that models can be better than CGI (and I'm not just saying that because I'm a modelmaker) but any effect has to be a balance - there are some things that models look terrible at, and some things that CGI ruins. Although as CGI becomes more advanced it is becoming more useful - The Baron for example will almost certainly get some CG fat

They can make a 3D film into regular, but not vice versa, so why not?

You obviously haven't heard about Titanic 3D - coming 2012.

DuneFishUK wrote:Me too...

There has never been any question of this being anything other than a live action adaptation. 2d or 3d.

I agree with Redstar that models can be better than CGI (and I'm not just saying that because I'm a modelmaker) but any effect has to be a balance - there are some things that models look terrible at, and some things that CGI ruins. Although as CGI becomes more advanced it is becoming more useful - The Baron for example will almost certainly get some CG fat

They can make a 3D film into regular, but not vice versa, so why not?

You obviously haven't heard about Titanic 3D - coming 2012.

I thought you were joking but had to look it up just in case. Now I'm sad.

Rewritten, though not really necessary since I clarified afterward.

DuneFishUK wrote:I agree with Redstar that models can be better than CGI (and I'm not just saying that because I'm a modelmaker) but any effect has to be a balance - there are some things that models look terrible at, and some things that CGI ruins. Although as CGI becomes more advanced it is becoming more useful - The Baron for example will almost certainly get some CG fat

On average, practical effects are usually much better than CGI, but really only because not every production puts the proper money into it (SyFy channel is a really bad offender). If you're not going to go all out, you might as well go practical... Or even a mixture, which is one of the most effective routes.

Redstar wrote:Rewritten, though not really necessary since I clarified afterward.

DuneFishUK wrote:I agree with Redstar that models can be better than CGI (and I'm not just saying that because I'm a modelmaker) but any effect has to be a balance - there are some things that models look terrible at, and some things that CGI ruins. Although as CGI becomes more advanced it is becoming more useful - The Baron for example will almost certainly get some CG fat

On average, practical effects are usually much better than CGI, but really only because not every production puts the proper money into it (SyFy channel is a really bad offender). If you're not going to go all out, you might as well go practical... Or even a mixture, which is one of the most effective routes.

Er.. what?

Practical and CGI both have their own sets of limitations and can both look equally crap no matter how much money you throw at them. I can think of plenty of examples where a practical effect removed the need for CGI, however I'm struggling to think of an example where a practical effect is much better than modern CGI..

Ultimately a good effect is one you don't notice and the best way to achieve that is determined by the effect itself.